Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people. From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever. However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful. The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera. This would be revolutionary for Canon. But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it. Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach. I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS. Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame. Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).

You don't get longer reach you just change you FOV, still the same pixel pitch on your sensor.I can do the exact same on my PC by cropping.JohnJ

True but since this response was made at the time we were discussing how to save space on our cards by use sraw and mraw out in the field, the image size options on the D800 certainly save card space, while you are out in the field on a shoot. Birds in flight are a perfect example. I've only got a 300mm for my Nikon gear for my longest tele. A bird is very often just a relatively small part of the frame while in flight. The image size command draws a visual box around the dx area in the viewfinder. This allows me to see the bird in the viewfinder before he gets into my DX cropped area to photograph. Sure I can do it in post but that extra 36 mp shot gets cut down to 15+ mp right there and the surrounding area is one that I would not be able to use anyway. Just FYI.

Thats great if you actually want the FOV of a crop, then a crop mode is the best of both worlds. But if your looking to get a certain FOV that demands FF, and a shallow DOF at the 70-200 range, crop mode doesn't get you there unless you switch to a 24-105 lens. And if you want Wider, then crop definitely isn't helping....

Don't get me wrong, I am all for using the best tools one can to get the job done. If your style is bigger is better then not having sRAW and mRAW options are for you. But if your needs are different, having the flexibility to shoot in smaller RAW file sizes and maintain the same FOV is pretty awesome.

I will try this one more time. The situation that I find myself sometimes: I'm out several miles from my car, I only took a 300mm lens to keep the weight down. A subject (often times a bird which is small) comes up perched in a tree but requiring at least a 450mm lens. The bird won't wait. I quickly change to image area to Dx without changing the lens, I now can get my shot without the extra wasted space around the bird that would never fit into the composition. Sraw, and Mraw do not improve this situation. Post does work, but the full frame is much more that I need.

As you say, having mRaw or sRaw doesn't hurt to have also but for me, I prefer the cropped area where I choose the cropping when I'm shooting. Most of the time I do shoot full frame and hope that I'm carrying just the right lens. I'm done.

I will try this one more time. The situation that I find myself sometimes: I'm out several miles from my car, I only took a 300mm lens to keep the weight down. A subject (often times a bird which is small) comes up perched in a tree but requiring at least a 450mm lens. The bird won't wait. I quickly change to image area to Dx without changing the lens, I now can get my shot without the extra wasted space around the bird that would never fit into the composition. Sraw, and Mraw do not improve this situation. Post does work, but the full frame is much more that I need.

As you say, having mRaw or sRaw doesn't hurt to have also but for me, I prefer the cropped area where I choose the cropping when I'm shooting. Most of the time I do shoot full frame and hope that I'm carrying just the right lens. I'm done.

Like I said at first...different strokes for different folks. It's rare that I find myself in need of the reach/incam crop factor. I was never saying that my style of shooting applies to everyone, hence why I think there should be a split line in the 5 and 1 series bodies, one for sports, one for studio. Others here said more than once that they knew no one who would ever shoot in anything but RAW, while others here think its a unnecessary feature.

I shoot weddings, so for me its about having a file that I can work with while not blowing up my HD's in the process. 2000+ shots will be taken, the only X factor is how much space will each wedding take up. Crop mode, yeah, great if you want/need both the reach and smaller files. But, again, if your just looking to keep each wedding under 40 GB's, then not having sRAW and mRAW file options means each wedding will now take 80-120GB's. That will eat up storage space, CF cards and processor power ---- I know this style of shooting isn't what everyone does. But, there are lots of wedding shooters out there, and yeah, I only know 1 local wedding shooter with a d800 - and she has been asking many questions about how cut the file size down for post processing. Would I want a big MP body? You betcha I would. But do I need one? Right now no. My 5d3 on mRAW rocks a wedding like there's no tomorrow. Back to the point of it all, I really hope that if they put a big MP sensor in a 5d style body, it will be a split in the line --- a 5ds. That's all...

Having sRAW or mRAW facility and a cropping mode are totally unrelated. We shoot in RAW to allow further processing in 16 bit - nothing more. Assuming the camera has a high MP sensor, then to suggest that you only ever want to post process a digital image if you're going to enlarge the image to the size of a house is ridiculous. How many people really want photographs bigger than A2 all the time ?

Nikon must have lost a load of sales by forcing it's users to be saddled with 36MP files if they want to PP - which most serious photographers do all the time ( unless Nikon has another way that I don't know about ).

The 5D didn't need sRAW - on the MK2 and 3 it is useful. You can guarantee Canon will offer it on an ever higher MP camera because they are ( generally ) in touch with what serious photographers require.

In the same vein in camera cropping to DX is another gimmicky feature, no doubt incorporated to satisfy users of DX lenses on a FX body.

Nobody said everybody needs mRAW and sRAW. I stated a case where it is useful. It delivers an image IQ better than jpeg at smaller file sizes. Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't need it, fine, but I've made use of sRAW a ton with shooting sports with a 1DX. If you have strict deadlines go jpg. If you have relaxed timelines, shoot full RAW. Intermediate timelines shoot smaller RAW because it affords better processing vs. jpg but you also don't fill up your card really fast or take a ton of time to upload to a computer. I can fit 1800 sRAW files on a 32GB CF card.